onejayhawk
Afflicted with reason
The institute definitely leans libertarian.
J
J
Interesting study
- Thread starter onejayhawk
- Start date
MilesGregarius
Half-baked Renegade
I find Kansas' rather low rating (#32) amusing in light of Brownback's obsession with austerity and conservative policy dogma.
onejayhawk
Afflicted with reason
And tax cuts. The fact that they are not in the bottom two groups is telling. Close, though.
J
Perfection
The Great Head.
Wow, study shows that preconceived notions are validated when preconceived notions are assumed.
Last edited:
MilesGregarius
Half-baked Renegade
Given Kansas shares the generally low population and homogeneous demographics with the Dakotas, Wyoming, Nebraska, and Wyoming, (all "top 10",) 32 is pretty catastrophic for an administration that prides itself on "fiscal responsibility" and "business acumen."
Other than that amusing tidbit, though, this chart (like most statistics) doesn't really say much until compared to other data - per capita income, educational rankings, life expectancy, natal and maternal mortality rates, income disparities, incarceration rates, infrastructure quality, et cetera.
Timsup2nothin
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2013
- Messages
- 46,737
Say what? Not disclose what details? They are all linked on line #2
Look again. I 'll give you free market, but hardly right wing. Libertarian perhaps.
J
While I immediately thought that given that the OP was you and you had already been rightly called on the glaring dishonesty of the claptrap you brought here that "looking again" would be pointless...but I did it anyway.
Your "hardly right wing" source is a foundation that was founded by a Koch Brothers Executive.
You are once again exposed spouting your Republican shill nonsense and being the low hanging fruit that you are.
Perfection
The Great Head.
You're giving it too much credit.
This chart isn't statistics. "Fiscal Condition" is defined as things fiscal conservatives like - it isn't some neutral fact, fiscal conservative values are baked into the analysis. (For instance if you dig into their methodology they will penalize states for having higher tax rates)
Lexicus
Deity
Which seems like essentially the opposite of 'fiscal responsibility,' but who's counting?
Silurian
Deity
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2010
- Messages
- 7,567
It should be noted that the cost of building a subway system should be taken into account.
From Wiki
""Extended systems of underwater caves, sinkholes and springs are found throughout the state and supply most of the water used by residents. The limestone is topped with sandy soils deposited as ancient beaches over millions of years as global sea levels rose and fell. During the last glacial period, lower sea levels and a drier climate revealed a much wider peninsula, largely savanna.[3] While there are sinkholes in much of the state, modern sinkholes have tended to be in West-Central Florida.[4][5]
""
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geology_of_Florida
Tunnelling through sand filled sinkholes would be very expensive and technically difficult.
onejayhawk
Afflicted with reason
This ranking of the 50 states, reproduced on the following page from page 29 of the study, is based on their fiscal solvency in five separate categories: • Cash solvency. Does a state have enough cash on hand to cover its short-term bills? 2 • Budget solvency. Can a state cover its fiscal year spending with current revenues, or does it have a budget shortfall? • Long-run solvency. Can a state meet its long-term spending commitments? Will there be enough money to cushion it from economic shocks or other long-term fiscal risks? • Service-level solvency. How much “fiscal slack” does a state have to increase spending if citizens demand more services? • Trust fund solvency. How large are each state’s unfunded pension and healthcare liabilities?
I suspect the opposite of your assumption is true. A fiscal conservative would be interested in demonstrating that higher taxes did not improve solvency. That would require care to not penalize higher taxes.
J
In fairness, you should acknowledge that he intentionally cut revenue as well as the austerity measures. Also, Kansas did not benefit from the fracking boom during the Obama years as much as the other states.
If you have dug in the methodology, please share. For the record, there are five definitions of solvency used.
This ranking of the 50 states, reproduced on the following page from page 29 of the study, is based on their fiscal solvency in five separate categories:
• Cash solvency. Does a state have enough cash on hand to cover its short-term bills?
• Budget solvency. Can a state cover its fiscal year spending with current revenues, or does it have a budget shortfall?
• Long-run solvency. Can a state meet its long-term spending commitments? Will there be enough money to cushion it from economic shocks or other long-term fiscal risks?
• Service-level solvency. How much “fiscal slack” does a state have to increase spending if citizens demand more services?
• Trust fund solvency. How large are each state’s unfunded pension and healthcare liabilities?
• Cash solvency. Does a state have enough cash on hand to cover its short-term bills?
• Budget solvency. Can a state cover its fiscal year spending with current revenues, or does it have a budget shortfall?
• Long-run solvency. Can a state meet its long-term spending commitments? Will there be enough money to cushion it from economic shocks or other long-term fiscal risks?
• Service-level solvency. How much “fiscal slack” does a state have to increase spending if citizens demand more services?
• Trust fund solvency. How large are each state’s unfunded pension and healthcare liabilities?
I suspect the opposite of your assumption is true. A fiscal conservative would be interested in demonstrating that higher taxes did not improve solvency. That would require care to not penalize higher taxes.
J
Perfection
The Great Head.
onejayhawk
Afflicted with reason
Lexicus
Deity
What further explanation do you require?
Perfection
The Great Head.
It directly states that higher tax rates are penalized in their analysis, as Lexicus noted what more do you require?
onejayhawk
Afflicted with reason
No, it does not. It says that higher tax rates have less slack to raise tax rates. That's common sense, not a penalty.
You need a LOT more than that.
J
Perfection
The Great Head.
It's a justification for the penalty. But the truth of that statement is debatable. For instance, it stands to reason that states with higher tax rates have citizenry and industries that are more tolerant of tax increases when needed for the greater good - so maybe there's actually more slack in high tax states. Or it might be noted that citizens might be less apt to demand more services because they already have more. Recall your earlier point:
You will note that said care was not given. Instead it was flatly assumed that higher taxes resulted in diminished solvency based on unsupported conjecture instead of in-depth analysis
onejayhawk
Afflicted with reason
You have your opinion and you are entitled to it. All I will say is that your logic has been refuted.
J
J
Timsup2nothin
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2013
- Messages
- 46,737
If ONLY that were all you would say! If you ended on that blatant falsehood we could all throw a 'gone away' party in your honor.
By the way, the only thing that has been refuted here is your absurd claim that you had brought something that wasn't from a right wing hackery of a source.
Perfection
The Great Head.
You have your opinion and you are entitled to it. All I will say is that your logic has been refuted.
P
